link to the entire opinion, over 100 pages....ive got to work so i cant read it till tonight likely :-(
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
link to the entire opinion, over 100 pages....ive got to work so i cant read it till tonight likely :-(
They could save a lot of paper if they actually used the entire page instead of just the middle.
xvart.
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
I'm all for guns. I honestly don't care what kind of guns you or anyone else has. Any adult of sound mind should be able to have any kind of gun they want. Most people don't even hunt with them or use the good ones for protection, they target practice as a hobby and some just collect and don't even use them.
That said, I also support vigorous controls. I support detailed background checks, no matter how long they make. I'd also support written exams, eye exams, etc. Not saying you have to be a good shot to pass the eye exam, but you should have legally good vision and no depth perception/other visual problems. I don't know if you need to do these things anyway (I've only shot a gun a hand full of times) but if you don't, then they should make it mandatory! I'd also support mandatory (for the minimalist of fees, not tax-payer supported of course) gun safety courses, like those hunter safety courses people have to take. If you're not willing to do that stuff, then I guess you didn't want that gun as much as you thought.
I don't support a mandate that says only businesses can have loaded guns, and the rest must be unloaded and / or must have trigger locks. I'm not going to ask a robber to wait patiently while I load some bullets and unlock my gun (if I had my own gun lmao). My mom keeps a loaded hand gun in her purse and we have one in a drawer in our living room. Guns shouldn't be in a place children can get them PERIOD.
That said, I also support vigorous controls. I support detailed background checks, no matter how long they make. I'd also support written exams, eye exams, etc. Not saying you have to be a good shot to pass the eye exam, but you should have legally good vision and no depth perception/other visual problems. I don't know if you need to do these things anyway (I've only shot a gun a hand full of times) but if you don't, then they should make it mandatory! I'd also support mandatory (for the minimalist of fees, not tax-payer supported of course) gun safety courses, like those hunter safety courses people have to take. If you're not willing to do that stuff, then I guess you didn't want that gun as much as you thought.
I don't support a mandate that says only businesses can have loaded guns, and the rest must be unloaded and / or must have trigger locks. I'm not going to ask a robber to wait patiently while I load some bullets and unlock my gun (if I had my own gun lmao). My mom keeps a loaded hand gun in her purse and we have one in a drawer in our living room. Guns shouldn't be in a place children can get them PERIOD.
have had a chance to read over parts....
what i like:
the desision is actually 9-0 infavor of it being a personal right...the 4 decenting votes all say its an individual right they are just complaining about how Scalia worded the opinion....also notable that the complaints are siting crime rates and nothing to do with an individual right...not to mention the decenting opinions are weak arguements at best
it makes any outright gun ban unconstitutional
it requires all new gun laws to go through strict scruitiny to decide weither the right of the individual is being taken away
it flat out states that the second amendment has nothing to do with a militia and is very much the right of the individual
itt says that just because that semi auto hand guns and the like werent around in 1780's when the constitution was written does not mean the constitution doesnt include them....just like free speech applies to telephones and the internet
states and cities must now be "shall issue" states and cities, which means if your a law abiding citizen that is sane you can have a gun....the states and such are able to put in a screening process and require a permit but if you havent broken the law and are of sound mind they cant keep you from having them....
what i dont like:
Scalia’s opinion states that restrictions on "M-16's and the like" are likely ok which means to say that the 1983 ban on newly manufactured fully automatic machine guns being availible to the public is probably constitutional....that is how i read it anyway, unfortunatly i believe some ppl are going to say M-16 equals the semi auto AR-15 so its legal to ban the semi auto versions there of....i bet this issue will be infront of the supreme court within 10 years
the desision just says all out bans are unconstitutional but doesnt say what kind of restrictions might be constitutional....though because this wasnt an issue in the case i guess im ok with them not addressing it cause that would likely be stepping beyond what their powers should be......the Heller DC case was about an outright ban and thats what the court addressed......im guessing a case on this will be infront of the courts with in 10-15years
what will likely come about because of this:
it will mean that ammo bans and heavy taxation of guns and ammo will be unconstitutional because it makes it very difficult for law abiding citizens from having a firearm to protect themselves in their own home....
as much as i have issues with Bush, part of the reason for the way this desision went the way it did was because of the apointment of Alito and Thomas....had we had two justices appointed by Gore or Kerry its highly likely we would not have won this.....this fact is my number one concern about Obama....cause we are going to have more of these cases infront of the Supreme court in the coming years
what i like:
the desision is actually 9-0 infavor of it being a personal right...the 4 decenting votes all say its an individual right they are just complaining about how Scalia worded the opinion....also notable that the complaints are siting crime rates and nothing to do with an individual right...not to mention the decenting opinions are weak arguements at best
it makes any outright gun ban unconstitutional
it requires all new gun laws to go through strict scruitiny to decide weither the right of the individual is being taken away
it flat out states that the second amendment has nothing to do with a militia and is very much the right of the individual
itt says that just because that semi auto hand guns and the like werent around in 1780's when the constitution was written does not mean the constitution doesnt include them....just like free speech applies to telephones and the internet
states and cities must now be "shall issue" states and cities, which means if your a law abiding citizen that is sane you can have a gun....the states and such are able to put in a screening process and require a permit but if you havent broken the law and are of sound mind they cant keep you from having them....
what i dont like:
Scalia’s opinion states that restrictions on "M-16's and the like" are likely ok which means to say that the 1983 ban on newly manufactured fully automatic machine guns being availible to the public is probably constitutional....that is how i read it anyway, unfortunatly i believe some ppl are going to say M-16 equals the semi auto AR-15 so its legal to ban the semi auto versions there of....i bet this issue will be infront of the supreme court within 10 years
the desision just says all out bans are unconstitutional but doesnt say what kind of restrictions might be constitutional....though because this wasnt an issue in the case i guess im ok with them not addressing it cause that would likely be stepping beyond what their powers should be......the Heller DC case was about an outright ban and thats what the court addressed......im guessing a case on this will be infront of the courts with in 10-15years
what will likely come about because of this:
it will mean that ammo bans and heavy taxation of guns and ammo will be unconstitutional because it makes it very difficult for law abiding citizens from having a firearm to protect themselves in their own home....
as much as i have issues with Bush, part of the reason for the way this desision went the way it did was because of the apointment of Alito and Thomas....had we had two justices appointed by Gore or Kerry its highly likely we would not have won this.....this fact is my number one concern about Obama....cause we are going to have more of these cases infront of the Supreme court in the coming years
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
No problem. I'm scared of my mom when she's not packin' heat; I can't imagine her pissed off enough to use a gun. Not sure if I'd want to be in a robber's shoes and deal with her
I also don't care if they tax it heavily or not. I'm really rarely interested in fiscal issues, but I'd probably vote in favor of it rather than not vote on it. I'd be very blase about it, though. They could use the money to support gun education/control. Banning guns doesn't stop the bad people from getting them, just like banning drugs doesn't stop the meth dealers and cokeheads. People who want to ban guns outright don't seem to grasp the concept that gangsters and criminals don't follow the law in the first place and are going to purchase them via the black market. Oh wait, silly me. That's what they're already doing....
Let's just pretend that a democrate had elected the two new justices. Lets also pretend that they were extremely anti gun and will vote against any pro gun laws.
If the two new justices had voted against this that would have made it 7-2 in favor.
That makes the following statement wrong.
Ok I don't know much about the supreme court, but I'm pretty sure that there are some current justices that were appointed by Clinton. Apparently since the vote was 9-0 the justices , that was appointed by Clinton, voted for this too.
This shows that most democrates are not anti-gun, they are in favor of keeping guns in the hands of law abiding and responsible people. Which that don't explain how I have 5 legally bought guns. LOL
Of course there are some extreme people that think that guns should be completely banned. There are also people that aliens visit them every night. I believe that both are idiots but still way smarter than our president George R.Bush.
Yeah, it was good news but not too terribly so. It was a very close decision by a bunch of lifers on whether to honor the Consitution and Second Ammendment rights; that a court holds power that not even a president can wield is never good news . . .
yes while they did say it was an individual right to keep and bear arms, those that opposed it stated that it was likely alright for cities to require trigger locks or ban handguns if other means were availible such as shotguns........the official vote is 5 to 4....that means the official vote with 2 judges apponted by Gore or Kerry could have made the official vote 3 to 6 which means it would not have mattered if all said in the opinion that the right to bear arms is an individual right, the DC ban on hand guns and requiring all firearms to be locked up or inoperable would have stood and be considered constitutional............
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
Ya know... I'll be the lone dissenter in this group of hobbyist friends. My opinion is that this particular amendment made far more sense, way back when, and not nearly as much sense in our society. Back then, there was far more reason to have guns. After all, there were no grocery stores and people had to hunt for food. They were also dealing with the British, Indians, and wild animals. Nowadays, the Brits are our friends and really, no foreign nation has given us guff, on our soil, in ~200 hundred years. Also, most people live in cities and the suburbs. We don't to worry about bears, wolves, etc....
I won't go into how effective our police force is or how ethical our species is, relative to defending ouselves. That's not going to change. We will always have the idiots out there tp break in and steal.
I don't think that the pros of having a gun outweigh the cons of accidents (6 year old killing 8 year old sibling) or heat of passion crimes (abused housewife that finally snaps) or P.O'd kid who kills annoying brother or parent.
Hunting for sport? I'm not a hunter but I think that guns should be passed out and returned, like bowling shoes, when done.
Let the heated debate begin!
I won't go into how effective our police force is or how ethical our species is, relative to defending ouselves. That's not going to change. We will always have the idiots out there tp break in and steal.
I don't think that the pros of having a gun outweigh the cons of accidents (6 year old killing 8 year old sibling) or heat of passion crimes (abused housewife that finally snaps) or P.O'd kid who kills annoying brother or parent.
Hunting for sport? I'm not a hunter but I think that guns should be passed out and returned, like bowling shoes, when done.
Let the heated debate begin!
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
It's not about honoring or dishonoring the constitution. Just like the Bible, there are those who want to follow it strictly and literally, then there are those who want to follow it with a modern and contextualized interpretation.
The court holds some power over the President because of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is in the judicial branch, and the Presidency is in the Executive branch. The president also gets to appoint judges when an opportunity to do so arises. If the president had supreme power, he'd be a dictator and could do whatever he wants. The Constitution is the supreme power, no court or President. Your also forgetting that if enough people feel strongly enough about something (anything) we can change it. We can overthrow our own government if it does not serve us one day; the Constitution had planned that possibility since it already happened once. I do think that life terms are ridiculous. An analysis of the effectiveness and competency of the current Judges of the Supreme court should take place every so often instead of waiting until one retires, F's up or dies. As much as I want to plod the Liberal agenda onward, I don't think outing a Judge because one is conservative (or liberal if the President at the time is a conservative) would be OK Political ideologies aren't really grounds to call out incompetence, even though I may say so sometimes
"Free Speech Zones". That's the beginning of the end, folks. First that, then a ban on all guns, and then a sliding scale poll tax
The court holds some power over the President because of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is in the judicial branch, and the Presidency is in the Executive branch. The president also gets to appoint judges when an opportunity to do so arises. If the president had supreme power, he'd be a dictator and could do whatever he wants. The Constitution is the supreme power, no court or President. Your also forgetting that if enough people feel strongly enough about something (anything) we can change it. We can overthrow our own government if it does not serve us one day; the Constitution had planned that possibility since it already happened once. I do think that life terms are ridiculous. An analysis of the effectiveness and competency of the current Judges of the Supreme court should take place every so often instead of waiting until one retires, F's up or dies. As much as I want to plod the Liberal agenda onward, I don't think outing a Judge because one is conservative (or liberal if the President at the time is a conservative) would be OK
Political ideologies aren't really grounds to call out incompetence, even though I may say so sometimes "Free Speech Zones". That's the beginning of the end, folks. First that, then a ban on all guns, and then a sliding scale poll tax
That's just stupid. Most women would never want to shoot a shotgun.
As far as the issue of the votes, I've already said I know little about the supreme court and nothing about this issue except for what you have posted here.
You said it was a 9-0 vote and I assumed that it was simply a 9-0 vote. To tell the truth I still don't understand it, but I do know George R.Bush is an idiot. Did I already say that, I can remember.
i agree Bush over all is an idiot.....however i contend that Kerry and Gore were bigger idiots......
when i said that the 9-0 vote was for an individual right that means all said in the opinion that it is an individual right, however the official vote is 5-4 that means one vote would have found in favor of DC instead of Heller....
as far as women not wanting to shoot a shotgun, what are you smoking? i know plenty of women that shoot shotguns, there is everything from 410's to 28 guages to 20 guages to 16 guages to 12 guages to 10 gueages....my wife has no issues with the 410's through 20 guages, a properly fitted 16 or 12 guage with appropriate loads she can shoot hell i dont bother with 10 guages, thats a dedicated goose gun and i dont hunt geese...besides personally i would rather habe a short rifle or shotgun for home defence than a handgun.....far easier to shoot a rifle or shotgun(with a stock) than a handgun under stress....
Jim as far as guns not belonging in todays society.....if i call the cops, even living in town, i may have 10 minutes before they get there.....police departments respond AFTER something happens, they are very rarly there WHILE something is happening.....there is very much a place for firearms in our society....
as far as handing out hunting weapons like bowling shoes, that comes from not knowing jack about firearms, just having one does not automatically qualify you to hunt in my book....you must practice, practice practice....i know individuals that send thousands of rounds down range every year in preperation for a handful of shots at game...im far from that level though i do put several hundred rounds down range every year.....also no one gun fits everyone....i cant shoot my wifes hunting rifle in a hunting situation cause it does not fit me, i can shoot it off a bench through using a towel or such between my shoulder and the rifle to extend the length of the stock....though my wife can make mine work it does not make for comfortable shooting for her cause the stock is way to long cause i have, as she puts it, monkey arms......
i have used firearms to protect my dog and other pets from coyotes, rabid skunks, feral dogs and similar....have not had to use my guns to protect me or my family as of yet and hope i never do but there were a couple situations where i was quite glad i had a rifle in easy reach cause i was 20 miles away from the nearest police officer if the situation went any farther down hill....i have had a hand gun pointed at me with a guys hand on the trigger when i myself did not have a gun......once again prolly 20 or 30 miles from the nearest police officer, luckily i was able to talk myself out of that situation.........
if you live somewhere you feel safe without a gun great, good for you....but be aware some of us know 911 will not always get a police officer to our door in time to stop bad things from happening, they will show up to try and catch the guy that has already hurt or killed me and my family........
when i said that the 9-0 vote was for an individual right that means all said in the opinion that it is an individual right, however the official vote is 5-4 that means one vote would have found in favor of DC instead of Heller....
as far as women not wanting to shoot a shotgun, what are you smoking? i know plenty of women that shoot shotguns, there is everything from 410's to 28 guages to 20 guages to 16 guages to 12 guages to 10 gueages....my wife has no issues with the 410's through 20 guages, a properly fitted 16 or 12 guage with appropriate loads she can shoot hell i dont bother with 10 guages, thats a dedicated goose gun and i dont hunt geese...besides personally i would rather habe a short rifle or shotgun for home defence than a handgun.....far easier to shoot a rifle or shotgun(with a stock) than a handgun under stress....
Jim as far as guns not belonging in todays society.....if i call the cops, even living in town, i may have 10 minutes before they get there.....police departments respond AFTER something happens, they are very rarly there WHILE something is happening.....there is very much a place for firearms in our society....
as far as handing out hunting weapons like bowling shoes, that comes from not knowing jack about firearms, just having one does not automatically qualify you to hunt in my book....you must practice, practice practice....i know individuals that send thousands of rounds down range every year in preperation for a handful of shots at game...im far from that level though i do put several hundred rounds down range every year.....also no one gun fits everyone....i cant shoot my wifes hunting rifle in a hunting situation cause it does not fit me, i can shoot it off a bench through using a towel or such between my shoulder and the rifle to extend the length of the stock....though my wife can make mine work it does not make for comfortable shooting for her cause the stock is way to long cause i have, as she puts it, monkey arms......
i have used firearms to protect my dog and other pets from coyotes, rabid skunks, feral dogs and similar....have not had to use my guns to protect me or my family as of yet and hope i never do but there were a couple situations where i was quite glad i had a rifle in easy reach cause i was 20 miles away from the nearest police officer if the situation went any farther down hill....i have had a hand gun pointed at me with a guys hand on the trigger when i myself did not have a gun......once again prolly 20 or 30 miles from the nearest police officer, luckily i was able to talk myself out of that situation.........
if you live somewhere you feel safe without a gun great, good for you....but be aware some of us know 911 will not always get a police officer to our door in time to stop bad things from happening, they will show up to try and catch the guy that has already hurt or killed me and my family........
jimscott
Tropical Fish Enthusiast
I've lived in what was called the "inner city" of Buffalo, for ~20 years. Like any city of decent size, it is undafe to go out alone at night and people always lock their doors. There are numerous car alarms and other assorted things in place. I have never owned a gun or even shot one. You have me there! But then again, I've never needed a gun, either. Lucky?
The only problem with that tack is that, to couch the Constitution and the view of the Framers only in terms of what was envisioned two-hundred years ago, is to take away the view that the Consitution is a "living" document plastic enough to be relevant today. The further argument that the Second Amendment was intended only for organized militia is mostly a misunderstanding of the language then used -- and the Framers could never ever anticipate what a violent sewer D. C. ("da' Capitol") was to become . . .
The number of handgun accidents is troublesome to be sure in a peaceful but statistically fairly irrelevent; for each egregious story of a child injured or killed, there is also an another account of how a violent intruder was pithed by a homeowner and his family protected . . .
The number of handgun accidents is troublesome to be sure in a peaceful but statistically fairly irrelevent; for each egregious story of a child injured or killed, there is also an another account of how a violent intruder was pithed by a homeowner and his family protected . . .
Jim i dont think you lucky i think your fortunate, and contrary to all the macho BS you see on TV such an encounter isnt fun or even exillerating....it really sucks and isnt fun......i live in a county bigger than Rhode Island with a population of about 10,000.....im far more concerned about rabid skunks and feral dogs than someone breaking into my house while im home though it has occationally happened here......if you dont want a gun im prefectly fine with that but dont tell ME that I dont need one because chances are your beliefs arent relevent to my situation......im a law abiding citizen, have no beef with anyone thats willing to just leave me alone......
well guess what Ozzy, while all 9 said its an individual right to own a firearm a couple of the 4 that decented on the opinion in general say just that....they thik its constitutional to ban handguns from the general populace if a city or state deems it nessisary.......
well guess what Ozzy, while all 9 said its an individual right to own a firearm a couple of the 4 that decented on the opinion in general say just that....they thik its constitutional to ban handguns from the general populace if a city or state deems it nessisary.......
yes but the supreme court has also ruled that it is not the polices job to protect you from an attack....their job is to arrest the perpitrator and haul them infront of a jury of their peers for punishment.....State and Local governments are not required to provide you with personal protection...thats YOUR JOB...its YOUR job to lock your door not the polices job to keep someone from walking into your house....
I agree with this decision. I'm a San Francisco liberal, but also a proud gun owner. On this ONE issue, I fall on the side of the Conservatives.
However, those same justices who got this one right have dropped the ball on virtually every other Constitutional right (utterly blowing most church/state issues, for example). It's as if the liberals like 9 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the conservatives like the other one. From my perspective, it's all or nothing. If you don't like an amendment, pass a new one repealing it - they build in a mechanism for that. But for the moment, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns. And that's good.
Capslock
However, those same justices who got this one right have dropped the ball on virtually every other Constitutional right (utterly blowing most church/state issues, for example). It's as if the liberals like 9 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the conservatives like the other one. From my perspective, it's all or nothing. If you don't like an amendment, pass a new one repealing it - they build in a mechanism for that. But for the moment, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own guns. And that's good.
Capslock
